SSD for Small Business Server

Hi all- I'm looking to setup a new server for our small real estate business. We have about 8 users on the network and I'm looking to install MS server 2008 R2 standard with SQL server and Exchange added on to that. (We currently have sbs 2003 with an intel g1 80GB that has been running much better than our old raid hard disk setup). As is typical in a small business environment, the server will have a multitude of roles: SQL server for our management software db, file serving, a lightly used web server for a web module of our management software and of course the regular network routing and DHCP. Only one or 2 clients users utilize exchange, everyone else is pop3 connectors.

I know the R2 of server 2008 now supports trim which is one reason why I'm looking at that OS, so any thoughts on which SSD I might be considering? I originally picked up the intel drive because of how well it performed on the file server and webserver benchmarks.

I'm keeping an eye on the new sandforce controlled SSD's but realize they are not proven--hell I guess many of these SSD drives share some of the same uncertainties which is why we backup daily. Any feedback or review links that might have a nod towards server benchmarks are welcome.

Thanks- chris

Other ssd based reviews with a server usage slant:
2/28/2012 - http://www.storagereview.com/sandisk_extreme_ssd_review SanDisk Xtreme great comp
2/21/2012 - http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...-review-6.html Good comparison
2/13/2012 - http://www.storagereview.com/intel_s...erprise_review Enterprise Benchmarks and Overprovisioning
4/25/2011 - Tech Report Good stuff : http://techreport.com/articles.x/20646/7
2/27/2011 - http://www.storagereview.com/ocz_vertex_3_review_240gb
10/13/2010 - Real world comparison of many SSD's in July 2010
8/1/2010 - http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/windows-7-ssd-trim,review-31982-17.htm- Summer Roundupl
7/13/2010 - New IOmeter on C300
6/25/2010 - http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid...e=expert&pid=7
6/22/2010 - http://techreport.com/articles.x/19079/7 Great One!
6/7/2010 - http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.ph...1&limitstart=4
5/25/2010 - http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/319...0/index11.html
4/13/2010 - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...dd,2603-6.html

Quote:

---

I'm keeping an eye on the new sandforce controlled SSD's but realize they are not proven

---

that's where u got the G2 80-160GB, and trim supported.
u can check out this benchmark for the X25-E (32-64 SLC version)
http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3532&p=7

and this one for the G2 (no SQL bench):
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=3403&p=15

you have these on TOM's for different server setups, G1 drive:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...SD,2012-9.html

the G2 should be a tad faster on read and ~the same or a bit slower on write performance,
if u'r happy with u'r G1 just go on for the same one,
u should'nt be suffering from any severe write degradation over time with trim.

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/5521/cropper8.png
Anandtech.

I would either go with an Intel G2 drive, or a Sandforce based drive. Personally I would either go with the 160GB Intel, or the 100GB (maybe 200 if you have a lot of stuff) Sandforce. With Server 2008, those somewhat large programs, database, and files you could be running out of space on an 80GB or smaller drive. But I guess it really depends on how many files and how large of a database you have.

Thanks for the info guys. Right now we get by with the 80GB G1 running SBS 2003 Premium and have about 20GB to spare. I think at this point I will be keeping an eye out for a 100 or 160GB G2 like Enigma suggested unless I can hold off for a few months and see what develops on the sandforce front. I'm looking for some good IO Meter sandforce benches if anyone sees that.

Edit- I found some good server benches showing what I wanted: a comparison of a sandforce, G1, G2 over at pcper: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid...e=expert&pid=7 From the looks of these benches, you'd be hard pressed to go with anything other than a G2 in a small business server environ.

Quote:

---

Edit- I found some good server benches showing what I wanted: a comparison of a sandforce, G1, G2 over at pcper: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid...e=expert&pid=7 From the looks of these benches, you'd be hard pressed to go with anything other than a G2 in a small business server environ.

---

nice finding..:yepp: and ouch,
so indlinex still can't beat Intel :),

Quote:

---

I think at this point I will be keeping an eye out for a 100 or 160GB G2 like Enigma suggested

---

yeah meant the same thing :yepp:, G1 shouldn't support trim...

I also came across this article: http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/319...0/index11.html which benches with passmark's "advanced disk" test. Tweaktown says it's a better alternative to the server based I/O meter tests. Their benchmark test definitely favors the OCZ Vertex 2 Pro and the Corsair Force 100 (a Sandforce SSD) over the 80GB G2, so I wonder how much better the 160GB G2 is.

the tweaktown benches are on an 80GB x-25m,
IOMeter tests can be awesome to view drive performance, yet they can't predict real-life work habits.
i'd trust PCmark better when it comes to this yet, don't forget the 160 version should be bit faster.
with prices range from 499$ to 579$ on the net and no proof for it on a server environment, you should consider buying a truck and not a racing car ;).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onex

the tweaktown benches are on an 80GB x-25m,
IOMeter tests can be awesome to view drive performance, yet they can't predict real-life work habits.
i'd trust PCmark better when it comes to this yet, don't forget the 160 version should be bit faster.
with prices range from 499$ to 579$ on the net and no proof for it on a server environment, you should consider buying a truck and not a racing car ;).

---

So are you saying that the IO Meter tests for file server, db server and webserver are bad examples of how the drive would fair in a server environment and that PCMark is better?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigretard21

So are you saying that the IO Meter tests for file server, db server and webserver are bad examples of how the drive would fair in a server environment and that PCMark is better?

---

sorry for the late reply,
don't know really,
IOMeter is a synthetic tool as HDTune, HDTache CDM etc.
they test the HW ability yet in real world environment, results come out differently.
u can see it all over review, SSD's as CPU's etc. respond differently to different tasks,
generally it gives u a picture which one should be better,
at the bottom line, it's at u'r place & u'r work load when u discover.

u can go for both drives, they both should give u excellent performance (yet early to say ~ the corsairs),
if u were good with the G1, u shouldn't be disappointed with the G2's.
if u care for the price, u also gain some few hundred dollars by choosing it (vs the size).

intel would probably manage to setup a RAID TRIM sooner or later so u'll be able to add another drive for an array,
and IIUC, u'r setup is only for 8 clients, most of them using pop3 and only 2 other uses the FS..
how fast do u need it to be..?
the SF controller could be faster, yet it could have some issues with.

basically, they should both be good, if u were happy with the Intel, it has some benefits, it proved to be working well,
why bother complicating things, getting anything u'r unaware of?

i'd just wait for some time, buy the X25-M, see how the SF goes, if it has any issues,
if u don't really mind losing some 50-80$, u can always eventually sell it and go for the SF :up:.
it's generally a tough call.

Thanks for the response onex! I am generally of the same opinion as you.

hey BR, u should also have a look at the anandtech X25-V article biker guy has brought here and see how well intel's controller performs while leaving it with some spare size:

especially at this page: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3618/i...m-g2-for-250/6
read it through, it has some very interesting findings.

and u can see some benches with intels SSD's and SF 1500 based ones from OCZ and OWC, http://www.anandtech.com/show/3618/i...m-g2-for-250/5
don't forget these are the 1500 SF and not the -should be slower- 1200 series.
the G2 performs really not that bad :yepp:.

In case anyone else is looking, I came across this update by Tomshardware, doing some server pattern IOMeter tests: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...dd,2603-6.html

Seems in a server environ, you pretty much can't beat Intel's G2 160GB all around awesomeness at that price point.

I see this thread is a little old, but have you bought anything or are you still waiting and wanting advice?

Still haven't bought anything. I was waiting to see some reviews on the Vertex 2 but have pretty much made up my mind on the G2, especially after seeing Tomhardware's tests from last week...but I probably won't be doing this build for another month or two, so I could change that if a game changer comes along, e.g. Vertex 2 tests unbelievably well.

Thanks GullLars,
Chris

I would advice you to use some level of redundancy for such a usage case as you will have. 2 x25-M in RAID-1 (mirrored) to avoid down-time. SSDs aren't infallable.
How much high-performance storage do you need BTW?

Thanks GullLars, I appreciate the tip. When we used HD's I ran a mirrored setup using the ICH10r chip. When we had IDE devices we had a perc4i card but couldn't justify purchasing a sata enabled raid card whenwe bought new hard disks beacause the onboard chipset worked and performed pretty well. When we purchased our first intel SSD (80GB g1) I decided to step away from the mirrored setup, partly because of cost buying another ssd, but also because instead we run a twice a day scheduled image backup. Since we are a real estate company, the risk of downtime and re-entering (at max) half a days worth of work was an acceptable risk in my eyes. SSD's aren't infallible, but running a single SSD vs. a software raid 1 hard disk has been much less of a headache. I'm sure a hardware raid setup would be a bit different, but I had a random server lockup or two during an update or whatever, and that would cause the raid to freak out and need to be rebuilt. Single drives are just much easier.

Performance is not critical accept to satisfy my inner nerd. Our 80GB G1 is fast enough, but it doesn't support trim and we're at about 85% usage, so the extra capacity of the 160GB would add some nice breathing room when I move to MS server 2008 R2.

ICH10R work great with mirrored RAID for 2 SSDs. If you can justify another $450-500 for a second 160GB G2 drive, two of them in RAID-1 (mirrored) on ICH10R, you will have a pretty reliable setup with good protection against downtime. Performance will be about the same as a single drive.
Daily image is a really good idea. You should keep doing that even if you go RAID-1.
The downtime while waiting for a new drive to ship should one fail can be annoying and cost you more than the cost of a second drive for redundancy.

If my yet to be purchased G2 SSD were to fail, I would always have a backup sata hard disk or my original G1 to flash the last image onto. It's a tough call, I like living on the edge of sanity. I'm sure if a drive were to fail, I'd be admonishing myself for not taking your advice.

The intel drives seem synonymous with quality; the G2 is a mature product at this point. I haven't come across anyone saying theirs failed during regular, i.e. no extreme testing, usage. Definitely more reliable than hard disks.

I'm just trying to help you set it up so you will be pretty safe and set for the next 3-5 years. $500 extra as a one-time investment with 3-5 years write-off will help you avoid downtime (make it orders of magnitude less likely), and keep you from loosing data between backups if a drive should fail. How trivial the consequenses may be, it's nice to be safe. the $100-150 pr year for one (or more) order of magnitude better safety could pay for itself in avoided losses should you win the inverse lotto. :P
While we're on the subject of safety, do you keep off-site backups? And do your on-site backup have redundancy?